Old news

I want to link to a couple of items from today's paper, so let me first reassure you that I'm not trying to turn into Will Bunch and don't intend to make a daily dose of local news a regular feature.

Neither of these stories, mind you, is anywhere near as important as this or this or this, but I haven't yet gotten to the point where I can discuss those without sliding into a profanity-filled tirade. I can't yet offer any more helpful comment than to point out that these people are perverse and monstrous and, based on their own words, their own admission, the question is not how long they should be allowed to remain in office but how long they should be forced to rot in jail. These motherless bast...

OK, no. See? Still a bit too sputtery to discuss all of that. Soon, though. For now I'll just stick to a couple quickie notes from today's paper.

- - -

Here's the AP's follow story on the government-sponsored research on using sewage sludge to try to neutralize lead-contaminated soil.

The mix of human and industrial wastes from sewage-treatment plants was spread on the lawns of nine low-income families in Baltimore and a vacant lot next to an elementary school in East St. Louis, Ill., to test whether lead in the soil from chipped paint and car exhausts would bind to it.

The research conducted in 2001 and 2002 was funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The idea being tested here might be a good one. The way it is being tested is troublesome for two big reasons, neither of which has anything to do with the ickiness of sludge. The foul smell here comes from something else.

First, and most obviously, this is a test, an experiment. This research was being conducted to find out whether or to what extent, if any, mixing such sludge with contaminated soil might be effective in neutralizing the toxic lead present there. The people conducting this research, in other words, were doing so because they do not yet already know whether or to what extent this might be effective. That's what "research" and "experiment" mean. Yet when they arranged for this research with those nine families in Baltimore and the hundreds of families whose children attend that East St. Louis school, the researchers didn't present the technique as experimental -- they told those families that they already knew that this method would be effective. They didn't already know this. What they told those families was not true.

Second, the researchers also reassured those families, with greater confidence than they could claim, that they were certain the sludge itself posed no additional threat. That was probably true, but not the certainty it was presented to be. Those families had the right to be informed of the distinction between pretty sure and certain.

The research being conducted here was worthwhile, noble even. These families were already living in a toxic environment and the researchers hoped, suspected and believed that they might have a way to help with that. That's what they should have told these families.

The most scandalous thing here has nothing to do with the researchers or with sludge. The deeper scandal is the problem those researchers were trying to address: That it is not unusual in this country for poor, black children to live their lives surrounded by the toxic threat of lead. Researching a potential way to neautralize that toxin is one step up. Conducting that research dishonestly and unethically is two steps back.

- - -

The other piece of news from today's paper isn't really new, just an astonishing bit of local history from 40 years ago -- a look back at former Delaware Gov. Russell W. Peterson's decision to end the military occupation of the City of Wilmington.

This is one of those things that I initially had to read and re-read to convince myself that I'd read it right. The what? In the rioting that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. 40 years ago, Delaware's Gov. Charles L. Terry Jr. called in the National Guard to patrol the city. OK, I get that. That happened in a lot of cities in the spring of 1968. But in Wilmington, the National Guard troops stayed for nine and a half months. The troops patrolled the city until Terry was voted out of office.

Peterson, a Republican of the sort that's much harder to find these days, campaigned on the promise that he would end the military occupation of this American city. Peterson's speech, given just before taking office, strikes me as worth quoting today:

What has happened in Wilmington is a warning not only to the citizens of Delaware but to all Americans. The deeply disturbing fact is that many citizens not only favored, but demanded the military patrols.

American tradition says, “It can’t happen here.”

Our experience in Delaware tells us that, to an alarming extent, it has happened here. History tells us that when people voluntarily accept military controls, for any reason, they often end up losing their own freedom.

Comments

[Jeff]

I haven't yet gotten to the point where I can discuss those without sliding into a profanity-filled tirade.

Three simple words: War Crimes Tribunal If Bush isn't forced in front of it, no one will take it seriously.

[not_scottbot]

You know, the rest of the world already assumed this. Having a few memos proving it doesn't really make much difference in their eyes.

Even more interestingly, where are the calls for impeachment? I mean, most people world wide already thought America politically bankrupt when Bush was re-elected, but not even a symbolic bill of impeachment from any single figure?

I mean, even Ashcroft (Ashcroft?!?) thought what was happening to be wrong.

[Jesurgislac]

The correct order for impeaching Bush and Cheney is Cheney first, then Bush. Progress on House Resolution 333 is outlined at the www.impeachbush.org website, as are other related actions and events.

[Rachel Jayne]

By not_scottbot

I mean, most people world wide already thought America politically bankrupt when Bush was re-elected, but not even a symbolic bill of impeachment from any single figure?

It would take a lot more than starting the impeachment process for the world to change its mind about America. It would take absolute outrage in all but the most right wing media outlets and from the vast majority of the American public for us to think America has the potential to be anything but politically (and morally IMHO) bankrupt.

Torture is acceptable, freedom just a catch phrase and elections open to the highest bidder (I am willing to admit that the latter might have been a blip in reality... when a democrat wins office and we start seeing changes).

Unfortunately, its so hard much harder to declare bankrupt nowdays in the US... the country don't get to start with just a black mark... the world (and I'm hoping American citizens demands this for themselves) need repayment for wrongs done.

OT: It's interesting to see that there are US examples of cities wanting military control. It takes freedom, but people gain a sense of control. Many value control more than they do the right to live their lives. It's not wrong... we just need to be vigiliant about not letting the desire for control get out of control. Too many countries in the west have forgotten that footnote (mine included)... great example for the developing world. Makes me so proud of myself.

[R. Mildred]

It would take a lot more than starting the impeachment process for the world to change its mind about America.

Except all the rest of the world has enabled us to do this shit in the first place, so their opinion is kinda hypocritical at this point.

The ideal war crimes tribunal would start with the bush admin, and then move outward to all the bastards who willingly handed over people we asked for, knowing what we were going to do to them, to all the bastards who refueled our rendition planes knowing what the fate of the passengers was, AND then we can get onto the specific torturers, and the school of the americas and the rest of the torture/imperialism complex we've had set up since the year dot.

This is not a new thing, nor is it merely ourselves who are tainted by this crap.

[Jesurgislac]

R. Mildred: Except all the rest of the world has enabled us to do this shit in the first place, so their opinion is kinda hypocritical at this point.

Fuck you.

[not_scottbot]

Good point about the order of impeachment - paying attention to the details is important. Just like that gang in the basement, who seemed to have discussed the merits of particular techniques which they were ordering used in the war against whatever it was they were fighting against.

[not_scottbot]

Now, now - 'fuck you' seems so impolite.

After all, any number of countries saw the threat posed by the U.S., and instead acting in the proper manner, with a shock and awe attack to ensure that America's weapons of mass destruction would not threaten any other nation, they stood by and did nothing but protest (in the millions), remove governments from office (Spain getting particular note here), and otherwise 'enable' America to act in whatever fashion a semi-elected group of lawless torturing thugs thought best.

Of course America's failings have nothing to do with Americans, their elected government, nor their apathy to oppose a war that is bankrupting the U.S., not only morally but financially.

Personally, though, there is another enabler in the picture, at least according to President Bush - 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa )

That's right, America is blameless, because God made him do it. See, just like in this well known American hymn-
'Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.'

[Jesurgislac]

Except all the rest of the world has enabled us to do this shit in the first place, so their opinion is kinda hypocritical at this point.

Okay, that was kind of intemperate, but:

"All the rest of the world" includes the Bosnian court that refused to hand over six men to the CIA, despite the CIA claiming very sincerely that they had evidence that the six men were guilty of terrorism, they just couldn't show this evidence to the Bosnian court. (The Bosnian government - the US is the second-largest donor of aid to Bosnia - permitted the CIA to kidnap the six men as they left the court in Bosnia.)

"All the rest of the world" includes the British judges who wouldn't allow a prisoner to be handed to the CIA without seeing some evidence meriting extradition.

"All the rest of the world" includes the families and lawyers and friends and supporters of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Airbase.

You may have intended to condemn only the governments who shabbily, shamefully acquiesced to US pressure - my own government, which passed an Act declaring that all the US had to do was ask for a prisoner by name, no evidence required, is far from clean - but to claim that "all the rest of the world" is hypocritical to condemn the US because of the US's behavior towards them as well as the victims of American kidnapping and torture?

Americans are always apt to blame others for their own evils. But this act of blame ("You let us do it! You didn't stop us!") is classic.

[Myriad]

one thing I really like about reading comments here is that there aren't any wide, sweeping generalizations of all the millions of people who live in one country. there's always a strong recognition that there are a wide range of opinions and actions going on, and they're not all bunched into one group like, say, "all the British people" or "Americans always do that." it's, you know, refreshing.

[R. Mildredc]

But this act of blame ("You let us do it! You didn't stop us!") is classic.

I'm not saying we are some how less to blame than anyone, because that would be like a person with a logcabin jammed in their eye pissing and moaning about how people with a splinter in their eye don't have the "lack of bits of wood in their eye" high ground, it's just that in the grand cosmic sorting algorithm of evil the world is our vast army of faceless mooks, and if those mooks feel that we're a bit evil they should maybe not carry out our orders then? The evil overlord* IS the evil overlord, but at the same time the mooks ain't exactly innocent when they carry out our orders.

Hypothsis: "international opinion" don't mean shit, nor is it something particular relevent to anything in particular, because if international opinion mattered then it would work as a form of negative feedback into our schemes and plans, limiting and constraining what we'd be able to get away with.

Test of hypothesis: Has the EU and/or ASEAN set up any sort of trade embargos of american and allied nation's countries to protest or affect our various evil schemes? Have they even really stopped allowing torture flights to refuel in their countries? Paid particularly close notice about when and which citizens of their own country the CIA is abducting to be tortured in foreign countries?

Or do their actions condone our evils contrary to their opinions?

It's just that I see people talking about how "we've lowered the world's opinion of us" I wonder A) didn't we sell hitler weapons? B) do they not know we sold weapons to hitler? C) Wouldn't it actually be a good thing for world opinion of us to be really low considering what our foreign policy has consistently been like for the past 50 years or so? and D) Why the hell doesn't the world DO something if they have such a low opinon of our shenanigans!? It also seems ridiculously silly, making the whole thing sound more like america has fallen out with the "cool kids" at high school.

Rather than, you know, us randomly abducting people prior to torturing them to death because an Al Qaeda agent pretending to be a friend of the american regime in whateverthefuckistan has been feeding names of random innocent people to the CIA so that terorist group X Y or Z can attack an american military fort in leftturningatalberqerque.

I'm not saying that countries with minimal resources to do anything about us should be held to an impoosible standard to do something, given that the CIA backed counter-counter-revolution designed to kill and oust Hugo Chavez's counter-revolutionary government in Venezuela was far from an isolated incident, but at the same time if they're so constrained their opnion doesn't matter because they can't do anything about it, and if they aren't so constrained their lack of action must surely earn their governments the perk of going up against the wall when the revolution comes just like our bastards do, and their graves being turned into public toilets just like Nixon's.

* yes I'm calling the US an Evil Overlord. A decade ago that would have probably just about qualified as hyperbole (if Clinton wasn't stuffing HIV+ refugees into camps or Reagan wasn't bankrolling folk who had this habit of machine-gunning buses full of nuns...) and then Bush started publicly condoning human rights abuses and we became honest to goodness card carrying villain so...

[kodiak]

"Except all the rest of the world has enabled us to do this shit in the first place, so their opinion is kinda hypocritical at this point."

A hearty second to the fuck you remark... Maybe you haven't noticed, but other countries have been fighting off US imperialism by all legal means, just to watch the USofA turn around and, like a 5 year old bully, blow a raspberry at the civilized bodies who hand down judgement (oddly, even when that judgement is in favour of the USA).

That you consider strength of arms by another soverign power the only viable way to stop the out of control war mongering America seems forever embroiled in is ridiculous (or, if not precisely that, then the failure of those other countries to intervene in unspecified circumstances). Not only are there other methods of restraining a country (such as only joining just causes, i.e. Afghanistan and not Iraq), but pre-emptive warfare is an unjust action and seen as such by all international bodies. Someone physically restraining you on the chance that you might hurt yourself is violating your right to self-determination.

So you want the international community to step in prior to having cause and restrain the US from excesses?

Ya, that's not a failure on the part of US politicians who can't tell their own arses from holes in the ground... or of the voting public who elects such stalwart figures... or of those who can't be bothered to try and change things by getting out to vote at all...

nah, gotta be the entire rest of the world being hypocrites... couldn't be anything else really...

[Cyllan]

In an interesting case of blog convergence, I just finished up reading an article on the Stanford Prison Experiment and the psychologist who conducted them. In many ways, I think the article sums up the general feeling in the States at the moment; we've slipped every so slowly downhill, and now that we've lost sight of our starting point, we're not really sure how to get back.

I know I'm not sure what else I should be doing to fix the problem. I vote. I have written elected officials and gotten bland "thank you for your letter" responses in return. I've donated money to political causes. Yes, I could be out in the streets shouting and waving a banner, but that's just not me. Other suggestions are welcome, but it's an awfully depressing topic to cover.

[not_scottbot]

You know, it is refreshing to never make generalizations - America didn't invade Iraq, because there is no such thing that can be generalized as 'America.' And American soldiers weren't torturing anyone in any prison in any foreign prisons, because to generalize like that means that all the American soldiers that were doing other things (shooting up the occasional wedding party, for example) are implicated in something that only some of them did. Which of course logically means that 'America' (which doesn't exist anyways) didn't torture anyone. It was just individuals, following their orders - you know, I think that excuse has been tried before, since it has a certain ring to it. The ring of conviction, at least.

As a matter of fact, generalizations are only defended in the U.S. when they have their proper place - like no-fly lists, for example, or for immigration sweeps that can tell, at a glance, who is American and who isn't. Because being an 'illegal' has everything to do with how you look, and nothing to do with where you are born, right?

As a matter of fact, I'll really go out on a limb here with this generalization - anyone paying American taxes is financing war, torture, and misery. Let's hope that if you are an American, you didn't pay yours. Otherwise, I'll just have to generalize about your deeds, and not your words.

[not_scottbot]

'Have they even really stopped allowing torture flights to refuel in their countries?'
Yes.

'Paid particularly close notice about when and which citizens of their own country the CIA is abducting to be tortured in foreign countries?'
Yes.

You also left out arrest warrants for CIA personnel, by the way.

Or the attempts to bring charges against war criminals.

But then, Germany has a pretty convoluted relation to how to handle the evil that any government is capable of committing in the name of necessity for that government's greater goals.

[Jesurgislac]

R Mildred: I'm not saying we are some how less to blame than anyone, because that would be like a person with a logcabin jammed in their eye pissing and moaning about how people with a splinter in their eye don't have the "lack of bits of wood in their eye" high ground, it's just that in the grand cosmic sorting algorithm of evil the world is our vast army of faceless mooks, and if those mooks feel that we're a bit evil they should maybe not carry out our orders then? The evil overlord* IS the evil overlord, but at the same time the mooks ain't exactly innocent when they carry out our orders.

Good point. OTOH, as Kodiak points out, it's not as if the US just asks politely and accepts a no for an answer.

"Only following orders" isn't much of a defense, but it can be a defense if "orders" include threats.

True, I don't think much of my government for passing a law to make it legal for the CIA to just ask and have when they want a prisoner out of the UK. But the UK did - eventually - get all the UK citizens and the UK legal residents out of Guantanamo Bay, and has been pretty consistent about refusing to deport people to countries where they will be tortured ... apart from the US. (And now Bush has made it explicit that the US is a state sponsor of torture, I think we may be able to ensure that prisoners aren't handed over to American authorities, either.) It's not as if the UK can make war on the US: it's not as if any country is in a position to make a credible military threat on the US.

Blaming the mooks for enabling your government? What of your own mooks? You put the people refuelling the rendition planes ahead of the people who actually committed acts of torture.

Test of hypothesis: Has the EU and/or ASEAN set up any sort of trade embargos of american and allied nation's countries to protest or affect our various evil schemes?

Sometimes. The US always sets up a squawk when we do.

Have they even really stopped allowing torture flights to refuel in their countries?

Yes.

Paid particularly close notice about when and which citizens of their own country the CIA is abducting to be tortured in foreign countries?

Yes.

Why the hell doesn't the world DO something if they have such a low opinon of our shenanigans!?

Do what? Countries with the ability to do so have rescued their citizens and even legal residents from the US: the Red Cross inspects Guantanamo Bay and tries to inspect Bagram Airbase: Amnesty International, of which I am a member, routinely protests the human rights crimes of the US: countries which got involved in the war on Iraq against the massed protest of their citizens have mostly since withdrawn: and to a limited extent, I feel even the tourist boycott of the US by ordinary citizens may help. Somewhat.

I can't bomb the White House. I wouldn't if I could. I can't launch an armed attack on Guantanamo Bay to rescue all of the prisoners there, still less on Bagram Airbase. (I am less sure that I wouldn't if I could, but it would take an international cooperative effort that would have to be kept absolutely secret from the US - and the US has ensured that arrangements for international cooperative military action take place through channels run by the US.)

What do you suggest that the citizens of other countries do to overthrow the criminals running the US, RMildred?

[Cowboy Diva]

As a longtime reader of this blog I would like to thank all those non-US citizens for their support and encouragement in these rather dark days as the de facto world officer of the peace [sic] has become rather obnoxious and stupid. Anybody got any bright ideas (because obviously US citizens need all the help they can get at the moment), or do y'all just need to rant for a while?

[kodiak]

Bright ideas? Start by taking back government... and I don't necessarily mean starting big. Those with big ambitions end up being corrupted by a corrupt system. Instead, start with local governments. Run for school board, run for city/district councillor, run for mayor. And if/once elected, don't allow expediency to compromise your values. Make and keep promises, or explain in detail why they could not be kept (i.e. the previous government hid a large deficit...).

And work hard to make sure that the state/federal legislative bodies don't over throw your rights at the municipal level. Once the house is in order on that level, get people to start moving up to the state level. Eventually this can filter upwards to the top levels (it will take LOTS of time), but if you keep the politicians honest and transparent starting at the local level, the questions will start to be asked why they can't be so at the state level, etc.

And one of the great points of local politics is that many of the positions are part-time, so you don't have to completely give up your life and livlihood to campaign and hold a seat.

Anyways, if you want a constructive idea of where to start, in any democracy, that's mine.

[kodiak]

Oh, and in addition, form a splinter sect in political bodies if possible. Include in that group anyone who will make ethical decisions and have realistic goals. If possible, make sure to call out other party members who are misbehaving in any way and try to ensure that they don't drag the party off focus or off message and that those who sin egregiously aren't allowed to keep positions of trust.

Since the USA operates as a two party system, whichever you join, take the time to improve it from within, to challenge it to be better...

There's more to participating in a democracy than voting.

[Ursula L]

I can't bomb the White House. I wouldn't if I could. I can't launch an armed attack on Guantanamo Bay to rescue all of the prisoners there, still less on Bagram Airbase. (I am less sure that I wouldn't if I could, but it would take an international cooperative effort that would have to be kept absolutely secret from the US - and the US has ensured that arrangements for international cooperative military action take place through channels run by the US.)

Well, the current US administration considers it completely appropriate for one nation to invade and occupy another in order to stop a government that was "elected" through a corrupted electoral process, advocates and orders torture, ignores the civil rights of its citizens, etc. I can't imagine why they'd have a problem with the same policies which they stand for being applied to themselves...

[Cowboy Diva]

Kodiak,
Thanks for the tip.
The most powerful level of local politics where I live is the Stevens County, Washington Board of Commissioners; a group of old white men, who are very good helping their friends growing alfalfa in the desert highlands in the southern part of the county; the commissioners are elected geographically and the ones in power (read, most seniority) are not people I can vote for or against.

The state and federal governments are actually preferable (apart from our direct representative to the State and Federal legislatures, although mercifully our longstanding state house rep will be retiring soon) because at least they have been known to act like adults occasionally, supporting local efforts against Canadian company TeckCominco for their history of polluting the Columbia River, and addressing growth and development patterns in a way that protects the riparian ecosystems in the region.

Now then, Kodiak, tell me how this has ANYTHING to do with addressing the social justice and constitutional desecration going on in DC? I can rant all I want, I can vote and write LTEs and put signs up in my window at home, but after that I am at a loss. Truly, let's talk about what comes next: Truth and Reconciliation Courts as in South Africa? Nuremberg? Bush has already tried to immunize his administration from appearing at The Hague, and we know his family has purchased large tracts of land (heh) in Paraguay; do we have a shot at all at retribution/penance?

[kodiak]

Now then, Kodiak, tell me how this has ANYTHING to do with addressing the social justice and constitutional desecration going on in DC?

er... that's not the question i was answering before... I don't have a pat answer for that. The USA was very specific in not signing onto the International Criminal Court, and have backed away over the last great number of years (not all in George Bush the II's time) from the international treaties they have signed.

I'd think that the only way out is to stop allowing the ridiculous degree of polarization that is occuring in America. (As Jon Stewart said, he thought it had gotten as low as possible when it was Democrat v. Republican, and then they boiled it down further to primary colours...) Start figuring out what committments America has made in the past to the rest of the world through treaties and conventions (starting with the Geneva convention would likely garner many results) and publicize to whatever extent you can how the US has been violating their written word.

it's been shown again and again (even in the comment thread here) that many Americans don't want to listen to 'outsider' voices, so do your best to make them hear the words agreed to by American presidents and leaders, which are still binding on America until those leaders pass some legal action to break that contract. Demonstrate that America is losing integrity by not keeping its word and see if you can get any traction with that.

I don't know if it could start a reconcilliation process similar to South Africa. I don't think so really... I mean, America hasn't been able to get one going on its race issue in all these years... despite the examples set by other organizations and governments. Whatever you do, I'd say that approaching both political parties with it would be key. Don't say that one is unadulterate evil while the other is the epitome of good (since extremes are almost always untrue), instead say that from this date you (and maybe a citizen's organization or some kind) will be organizing to see that America starts keeping its word.

Hanging the phrase "liar" or "oathbreaker" on someone no longer has the gravitas it once did, but if you can hammer on that point you might be able to get results.

But I'm an optomistic outsider looking in here... dunno if you want/can get any of those ideas moving...

[Cowboy Diva]

Kodiak,
not trying to take your head off; I do appreciate your thoughtful responses.
Let me try it this way:
A friend of my partner's from Scotland came to visit her in Portland, OR about 15 years ago. The Scot wanted to see the Grand Canyon, so my partner packed the car and started driving. Three loooong driving days later, when they arrived at the northern side of the canyon, everyone in the car had a newfound appreciation of space and time.
It seems so incredibly daunting from my perspective, getting the inertia of 300+ million people at varying levels of political awareness and social values to 1) realize that horrible things have happened in their name, 2) agree that they are horrible in the first place, 3) agree that something should be done about it and 4) agree that any punishment should fit the crime of supporting torture and invading countries on false pretenses.
This is why I despair, and want to curl up into a fetal position. The anger and righteous fury just doesn't seem enough anymore.

[kodiak]

side note: I don't think your understanding of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee is entirely accurate. Take a spin through the wiki for more info... they weren't set up as an instrument of justice, instead they were an instrument of truth and that angered as many as welcomed it, and in the end they failed in the "reconciliation" aspect of their mandate as the two communitites were not in fact reconciled to one another...

[kodiak]

Cowboy diva,

I totally understand that desire. In my life I've struggled with chronic depression and so can feel that way occasionally about day to day living, and the sins of nations often seem quite overwhelming.

The only thing I can do is to challenge the ten people closest to me, and hope that they can carry that on. I also monitor the politicians who run for office (I tend to send them all the same e-mail with a list of questions so that I can decide who to vote for... the one I had been leaning towards last cycle sent a "thanks for your support" note, and lost my vote and the votes - or so I'm told - of many others I told about it... as well as getting an e-mail from me after the fact explaining why I didn't feel I could vote for them) both before and after their election, and send e-mails questioning their record and their votes...

I don't know how best to change people's minds, so I just make up my own and do all that I can to make sure that I'm vocal in standing up for ethical politicians and calling out those who aren't. But then again, I'm not facing the politics of a bitterly divided country that is embroiled in national and international scandal... so what I can do will be different to what you feel you can do...

Anyone else have thoughts?

[kodiak]

shorter answer... force to end inertia has to start somewhere...

[lightning]

Except all the rest of the world has enabled us to do this shit in the first place, so their opinion is kinda hypocritical at this point.

Perhaps true, if you include everything since WWII. The rest of the free world was perfectly happy to let us finance the Truman Doctrine all by ourselves. Result was we crippled our economy to build an enormous military.

Then we got a president who wanted to use it ...

[David]

I may be missing something about the "new" details on torture and secret prisons, but I'm not really sure what we're learning that we didn't already pretty much know. I mean, we may not have had explicit written proof that George W. Bush himself personally ordered torture, but it was a strong suspicion, and even if we were feeling extraordinarily generous with the benefit of the doubt, we certainly knew that he explicitly approved of it and took legislative action to ensure it would continue.

I don't know if I'm missing some important aspect of it, or if I'm just cynical, but these revelations don't seem to add much that we haven't been aware of for years. Certainly, those things are deserving of anger and profanity, and I've given them a lot of both, but I don't quite see how things have changed now...

[Edward Liu]

"I haven't yet gotten to the point where I can discuss those without sliding into a profanity-filled tirade."

The term we came up for with that is "Political Tourette's Syndrome," where any attempt to discuss the philosophies or execution of public policy inevitably degenerates into the profanity-filled tirade you mention. This seems be a condition I have developed under the current administration. I believe it started with Don Rumsfeld, who I found myself unable to talk about without the word "asshole" rapidly finding its way into the conversation, but it didn't take long for it to spread to talking about just about everyone in the inner circle of the Bush Administration, other than Colin Powell and Christie Todd Whitman.

[not someone else]

What the hell.

Why are they doing this? I don't mean the torture; they're a government, they do shady things, if sometimes less and sometimes more. Why the hell are they admitting things? Why do they keep admitting things? Even given the surprising number of people who are okay with this, and the complete lack of retribution, there is no reason whatsoever to do that. Bush may be considered stupid, but there's no way the entire lot of them fall into the "too stupid not to choke on your own spittle" category. Particularly not in the realm of social savvy.

Is it a distraction? What could be so godawful that they'd distract people from even considering to look by "o hay torture over here"?

Is it some sort of giant psychological experiment to see exactly what percentage of the population you can fool all of the time? Maybe a follow-up to that Milgram experiment? Is it a way to see if someone with enough psychologically-invested authority can change community moral structures just by saying they think something ludicrous is okay with a straight face?

Magical mind control rituals at Camp David? Mutant zombie soldier virus? Spiritual-balance backlash against all the social progress that's been made> We've secretly replaced the American president with a very talented actor from Zorgma IV, let's see if they notice? What the fuck is going on here? There has to be something.

[Jesurgislac]

not someone else: Why the hell are they admitting things?

Because they are very, very confident that no one will ever bring them to book for it.

[not someone else]

Because they are very, very confident that no one will ever bring them to book for it.

That's not a reason to do it, though; that's just a lack of reason against it. It might come out to just random noise, but... I don't think so, if only because it's too easy to come up with several dozen stupid ego-stroking reasons.

[Cyllan]

Why the hell are they admitting things?

I suspect that it's because they don't think they've done anything wrong. After all, they're saving the country.

And I'm gonna stop here before my own P.T.S. acts up.

[Funkula]

Is it Thursday already?

[magistra]

The term we came up for with that is "Political Tourette's Syndrome.

I got to the stage where I had to turn off the radio whenever I heard Tony Blair's voice, because otherwise I would start shouting at the radio and that's not a healthy thing to be doing...

At least when the British government tortured people (Kenya, Northern Ireland) they had the decency to keep quiet about it, because they knew it was something shameful to do. Bush et al think that torturing proves they're tough, just as Blair came to believe that if a policy of his was unpopular it automatically meant that it was right.

[Kristy]

Is it a way to see if someone with enough psychologically-invested authority can change community moral structures just by saying they think something ludicrous is okay with a straight face?

Is it weird of me to find this possibility oddly comforting? I mean, yes, if we had invaded Iraq (in response to an attack by someone else, I feel inclined to point out yet again), killed civilians, broken peace accords and tortured prisoners because it was a psychological experiment, that would still mean that the world is pretty morally bankrupt - but at least it wouldn't be morally bankrupt and insane. Which it would be if we'd done all those things and actually believed they were the right thing to do. I can understand evil. I'm not so good with nonsensical irrationality.

If it is a psychological experiment, it seems to be working pretty well. I am amazed at the kinds of things I've heard people - otherwise decent, intelligent people - say they're ok with since Bush was appointed to office. It's as if he *steps carefully around Godwin's Law* Big Lie theory and took it to the next level - you don't even need to lie about what you're doing anymore. Just be in a position of authority and don't act like you did anything wrong, and if it's big enough (that's the catch, it's got to be big enough) people will buy it. Because they just can't imagine you'd do something that insanely wrong, so therefore it must somehow not actually be insanely wrong.

Seriously, I hear my folks talk about the Nixon years with a sort of nostalgia. Oh, for those innocent days when presidential wrongdoing sparked outrage in the general populace! Wasn't it quaint, the sort of minor pecadillos we found morally reprehensible back then?

...Don't mind me. I've been cranky and sarcastic on this topic for, oh, going on 8 years now.

[Froborr]

1) I want to distance myself massively from R. Mildred. America's evil is entirely the fault of America, and every American shares in it somewhat.

2) Some share in it more than others. The Bush administration is directly responsible, followed by the on-the-ground perpetrators, followed by the masses who just don't care that their government is disappearing people to other countries so they can be freely tortured. But some of us -- most of the Americans on this blog, for example -- have been doing our best to fight against it from the start, so yes, I can understand being offended by statements that tar us all with the same brush. On the other hand, that's a shade of gray, which in Jesu-vision is indistinguishable from pure collapsar black.

And yes, apparently, Thursday is early this week.

To get back OT: The entire Bush administration should go up for war crimes and be executed. If they flee to Patagonia or wherever they should be pursued with military force. They are monsters, and they must pay for their crimes as an example to every other fat, rich bastard who wants to rape the world.

[Kristy]

On the one hand - R. Mildred does have a point, and I'm not just saying this because it's amusing to see people get all a-flutter. Yes, America's evil is the fault of Americans, and no, we don't get to say "Oh, you didn't stop us, you're to blame too." [i]We[/i] don't get to say that. But non-Americans certainly can. I tell you what, if I was a citizen of a country that had deported prisoners to the U.S., knowing that they would be tortured, and then I heard my government denouncing the U.S. for torture, I'd probably feel that they were being pretty hypocritical. No, not all countries have done this or similar, and some who have have stopped, but enough have that as long as we're still working with broad sweeping generalizations (and why not? Imprecision and stereotyping are fun!), it's safe enough to say "The rest of the world is a buncha hypocrites."

No, no one else has the military might to threaten us, but we don't have the military might to invade every country that refuses to cooperate. If a country is maintaining cordial diplomatic and trade relations and giving us what we want when we ask, it makes any condemnation they make ring hollow. (And again, not all countries are doing that. I'm making a point, I'm not interested in a laundry list of who stood up to us where and who caved in when.)

On the other hand... that argument also goes along with the whole "anyone who paid taxes in America shares in the blame" theory, which may be true, but didn't dissuade me from paying taxes. If pragmatism wins out over ideals in day to day life, should we expect any more from countries?

[Kristy]

(Oh, bloody hell, one day I will get it through my head where and when to use UBB code and where to use HTML.)

[aunursa]

Today SCOTUS ruled by 7-2 that Kentucky's method of execution by lethal injection is constitutional.

@aunursa: And? Not trying to be dickish, I just honestly don't understand what that has to do with the topic at hand, or, if you're bringing up a new topic, what that topic is.

[aunursa]

Sorry, I should have prefaced "off topic".

[Jesurgislac]

Kristy: But non-Americans certainly can. I tell you what, if I was a citizen of a country that had deported prisoners to the U.S., knowing that they would be tortured, and then I heard my government denouncing the U.S. for torture, I'd probably feel that they were being pretty hypocritical.

Damn right. I am bitterly ashamed of my government's cooperation with the US. I'm not sure that the UK's cooperation or lack of it made a blind bit of difference in the long run - but it's the principle of the thing. Tony Blair addressed US Congress while British prisoners were locked up in Guantanamo Bay, and never mentioned the prisoners, and stood next to Bush as Bush lied about the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay being "bad men" who'd been "taken on the battlefield" and never contradicted him.

[aunursa]

Interesting. Blair appears to be quite popular across Europe.

Tony Blair popular choice as EU president
Mr Blair scored well inside and outside his own country. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, was the only other figure to enjoy the same widespread popularity, and she is not a candidate.

[Jesurgislac]

Kristy: (Oh, bloody hell, one day I will get it through my head where and when to use UBB code and where to use HTML.)

Don't bet on it. I use both, regularly, and am of the firm conviction that two good rules in the blogosphere are:

1. Everyone makes formatting mistakes
2. Everyone typos
3. No one need apologize for either one unless (a) they really want to (b) their mistake caused some actual inconvenience to someone else.

Three rules. Our three rules are the above and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Fred.... Our four...no... Amongst our rules.... Amongst our guidelines...are such elements as formatting mistakes, typos.... I'll come in again.

[aunursa]

Voters prefer Thatcher and Blair to Brown, poll finds
Gordon Brown faced embarrassment today when a new poll revealed that voters would rather have former prime ministers Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher or ex-MP Tony Benn as the country's leader.

Today's poll also revealed that Blair beat Clement Attlee, Labour prime minister from 1945 to 1951, in the contest to decide Britain's greatest post-war prime minister. He came third, while Thatcher was again in first place, with Winston Churchill second.

[Jesurgislac]

Aunursa: A lot of this has to do with name-recognition, especially in polls for a position that does not actually exist.

[Kristy]

Jesu: 1. Everyone makes formatting mistakes
2. Everyone typos

NOOOOOOOO!!!! But... see... how can I mock other people for failing to live up to my impossibly high grammar-nazi standards when I, too fail? It is unacceptable, you hear me? Unacceptable! No formatting errors or typos in my posts! NONE! Unless they're on purpose for reasons of comedy!

Oh, the shame... *flings hand to forehead and flops melodramatically*

*grins* Seriously, thanks for the reassurance.

[Ursula L]

I may be missing something about the "new" details on torture and secret prisons, but I'm not really sure what we're learning that we didn't already pretty much know. I mean, we may not have had explicit written proof that George W. Bush himself personally ordered torture, but it was a strong suspicion, and even if we were feeling extraordinarily generous with the benefit of the doubt, we certainly knew that he explicitly approved of it and took legislative action to ensure it would continue.

I don't know if I'm missing some important aspect of it, or if I'm just cynical, but these revelations don't seem to add much that we haven't been aware of for years. Certainly, those things are deserving of anger and profanity, and I've given them a lot of both, but I don't quite see how things have changed now...

Well, Teresa Nielsen Hayden has a saying about how she hates how this administration's behavior makes her feel like a conspiracy nut-case.

While these revelations don't add much to what most of use believed has been going on for a long time, what was going on has been so twisted that one hates to believe it, and one almost thinks that one must be wrong, when you try to explain it all out loud.

So it comes as something of a relief, to have proof-positive that no one can deny. Someone might say that what they did isn't wrong, but at least you're no longer in the position of being called a nut-job for saying that what is happening is, indeed, happening.

[Kristy]

"...what was going on has been so twisted that one hates to believe it, and one almost thinks that one must be wrong, when you try to explain it all out loud."

Exactly. Like I said. It's the new incarnation of the Big Lie. If it sounds too crazy to say out loud with a straight face, you can probably get away with it.